“AnCap Has Never Been Tried!” and Other Myths

 

One of the great myths I hear from people who believe in a utopia is that things like Communist, Socialist, and, yes, Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap) societies “Have never been tried”. This is, of course, nonsense. The USSR, China, Venezuela, Romania, Cambodia, and countless other nations give lie to the idea that a Communist Socialist society has not been tried. Dr. Jordan Peterson says it well here:

I really like his point, that this is an arrogant position: If I were in charge, I am so good and so competent I could usher in the utopia. I apply it to anyone making any utopian claims.

That brings us to the anarcho-capitalists, and the claim that their version of utopia has never been tried, either. This is also nonsense. We have seen, time and again in history, that when there is no state, there is not anarchy for long.

“Anarchy is the least stable of social structures. It falls apart at a touch.” — Larry Niven

What made me think about all this is this article today, on the death of an AnCap promoter: John Galton Wanted Libertarian Paradise in ‘Anarchapulco.’ He Got Bullets Instead

Galton and Forester were anarcho-capitalists who slipped U.S. drug charges worth 25 years in prison, they said in a YouTube video that night. They’d hopped the border and resettled in what Galton called one of the world’s “pockets of freedom,” a community billed as a libertarian paradise.

Almost two years later, Galton was murdered.

Last week, gunmen burst into the couple’s mountaintop home, killing Galton on the spot, and seriously wounding one of the couple’s friends. (Forester survived, badly shaken.) The killers are presumed to be a drug cartel; Mexican authorities say Galton grew marijuana at the home

Wow. In the absence of a strong government, a gang burst into his home and killed him.

Galton was part of a small community of fellow anarcho-capitalists formed by Jeff Berwick, who promised a drug-friendly haven and hosts the annual “Anarchapulco” festival. Berwick says Galton and Forester should’ve known what they were getting into.

“They started up a competing conference to Anarchapulco, called Anarchaforko and John continued to be involved in one way or another with the production or sale of plants,” Berwick told The Daily Beast in an email. “Unfortunately, that is the one thing that is very dangerous to do in Mexico as the drug cartels will attack anyone they see as competition and that appears to have happened to John.”

So, even in the AnCap utopia, you cannot grow weed in your own home and you cannot sell it because some other group, one with more guns, will come kill you. And there is no government to even punish them for it. I guess this really does mean might makes right in the AnCap world.

This whole story demonstrates, once again, that any real moves towards a libertarian AnCap utopia will always collapse into what I call “Warlordism”: He who has the biggest guns, wins.

Anarcho-capitalists who complained of robberies or street corner assaults faced ridicule, Mike claimed.

“Because this is a very ideological group, everything Jeff says is dogma,” he said. “If you said anything contra to the dogma, you’d be ostracized and in some cases doxxed. I know people who moved there and got robbed… However, when they publicly state this, the whole community turns against them and treats them as some kind of informant or spy.”

Heh. Cultish following of a leader. Not like communism or socialism at all, right? I love the way it closes:

“Anarchists understand that the government’s prohibition of plants and substances cause these problems and if anything it just makes events like Anarchapulco even more important in order to change the world and get rid of the violence and chaos caused by government,” Berwick said.

Blaming the government for everything is just like the socialists blaming racism for every ill under the sun. With no government, do we really think organized crime gangs would stop doing what they are doing? The price would drop? Somehow, I think the would just go into “legit” business, and their anti-competition behavior would go right on. No government to stop them. Heck, the one in Mexico right now is so weak it cannot.

Utopia is not coming to this world, not for communists, not for socialists, and not for AnCaps. Any attempt to create a utopia will always result in tyranny. Always.

Published in Economics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 167 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    AnCap is as much utopia as Democracy is utopia. It’s not anarchy in the sense that there are no rules or there are not any institutions. It requires a highly ordered system and really advanced, agreed upon morality, similarly to how democracy needs people to agree on the outcomes of elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

    Many aspects of AnCap have been tried with fairly long lasting success. It is true that it hasn’t all happened in one place at one time. AnCap doesn’t promise utopia. Nothing can really stop someone who’s really wants to murder you. All it aims to do is minimize the amount that people overstep their rights.

    It has the word anarchy in its title. Don’t pour water on my head and tell me I am not wet.

    “Anarchy” is in the title because there’s no publicly “owned” government that people usually think of when they hear “government.” The legitimate functions of the state are provided by private entities, but most of the important “nightwatchman” things the government does (as in, the stuff besides transfer payments) would still be done one way or another.

    Furthermore, AnCap is talked about in utopian terms. You may not think that happens, but it does, right here at Ricochet.

    I’m sure it is, when you’re trying to explain something with only a few sentences and paragraphs, you lose a lot of the nuance.

    AnCaps don’t believe in any agreed upon morality. Indeed, AnCaps don’t believe in anything other than their own liberty. They demand the right to override the wishes of those around them to act any way they so choose. I have seen AnCaps argue that doing something that lowers my property value, a real and honest, measurable event, is not “harm”. I rather doubt they think playing music too loud harms others either.

    The ones who are doing it right don’t say those things.

    No true Scotsman, then. 

    Nothing you have said in anyway contradicts my OP. 

    • #151
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Not to get into the weeds, but there wouldn’t be just one entity. It would be a bunch of competing (perhaps HOA-analogous) entities that provide protection services, probably among other services, at which point normal people say, “well, obviously those entities would just be at war with each other constantly, so it fails right there.”

    I don’t believe it’s nearly so obvious, but that’s why I’m strange.

    At bottom, what I’m asking here is who controls the money? And who tells him what to spend it on? And while I’m at it, I keep wondering how anyone knows who owns what land and by what authority is this land owned?

    Original land ownership is always a tricky problem, but it would mainly be done by improving and settling it for an extended period of time or purchasing it from someone else. A lot of the how it would work is going to be speculation by its nature because we can’t be sure what it would look like until the spontaneous order forms.

    Will police services be like what we saw with private fire departments that fight a fire a at one house and let the other burn? How would laws be made to prevent this, or would they not?

    I’m not sure. Fire isn’t nearly as much of a problem nowadays. It would certainly be permissible to let it burn. Perhaps they would put it out and try to charge people for the service after the fact if they haven’t bought fire insurance? Perhaps it would be a requirement if you wanted homeowners insurance?

    And who would make the laws, and who would interpret the laws and who would judge the transgressor?

    Judges/arbitrators. Most disagreements are decided by binding arbitration now anyway. The country would be a better place if government judges would simply rubber stamp binding arbitration decisions now. The courts actually get a lot of jurisprudence from private arbitrators already. Under AnCap, the judges/arbitrators with the best reputation for fairness would be the ones getting the cases and thus the only ones that could stay in business.

    It sound like your talking about small town government and giving it a new name.

    Well, most of the functions of even local government wouldn’t be performed. Roads probably wouldn’t be a smooth and paved where practically no one drives because the people don’t want to pay for that unless it’s done through taxation. Traffic would probably be a lot less too because there would be higher costs to use the roads during high use time.

    This is nonsense on stilts. The judges who gave the right results to the people who paid the most would get the work. Just at the private “police” forces who protected their clients at the expense of others would get the most work. The rich would have even more power over the poor, because their private forces would rule them. 

    Warlordism is always the outcome of anarchy. 

    Again, stop trying to pour water on my head and tell us we are not wet. 

    • #152
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Mike H (View Comment):
    When you figure out how to do that, let me know!

    I’m sure you knew that was sarcasm. :)

    • #153
  4. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Thanks for your frank honesty.  I kind of get a better picture of things now.  And I link this thinking with libertarianism (correct me if I’m wrong there too).

    A few thoughts.  What happens when the settlers die and their kids remain?  And what happens to this non-government government?  (Including, who gets the house?)

    If there are no community roads, and all roads are owned by the individual land owner,  you’re land locked and can’t leave your property without paying a toll.  You can’t get to work without paying a toll.  Tolls are private so the guy you flipped off yesterday blocks your use of his road today.  Assuming for this conversation most parcels in the town-like area are 5-10 acres, you have to pay a toll every 10th of a mile.  In the town, the road is owned by all business corporately?  And when you buy a business you must rebuy the road for yourself?  (The seller wants to keep his road rights.)  You must pay to use the corporate road to go shopping?  Otherwise, it the road free access?  If it’s free access why would any shop owner pay for partial ownership.  What happens when a flood ruts the road and it’s unusable?  Volunteer work?  What about the loafers and freeloaders?  Enough about roads.

    Finally would there be a jail?   How do you deal with thieves, vandals, robbers, assailants and murderers.  How does a magistrate or judge or paid mediator enforce a contract when the loser refuses to honor the judges decree?

    I just don’t see a town or county — especially one which will eventually be lived in and owned by people who never agreed to anything, and, say, ran away from home at 14 and returned to inherit the house and land — working without some form of “-archy”.

    • #154
  5. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Not to get into the weeds, but there wouldn’t be just one entity. It would be a bunch of competing (perhaps HOA-analogous) entities that provide protection services, probably among other services, at which point normal people say, “well, obviously those entities would just be at war with each other constantly, so it fails right there.”

    I don’t believe it’s nearly so obvious, but that’s why I’m strange.

    At bottom, what I’m asking here is who controls the money? And who tells him what to spend it on? And while I’m at it, I keep wondering how anyone knows who owns what land and by what authority is this land owned?

    Original land ownership is always a tricky problem, but it would mainly be done by improving and settling it for an extended period of time or purchasing it from someone else. A lot of the how it would work is going to be speculation by its nature because we can’t be sure what it would look like until the spontaneous order forms.

    Will police services be like what we saw with private fire departments that fight a fire a at one house and let the other burn? How would laws be made to prevent this, or would they not?

    I’m not sure. Fire isn’t nearly as much of a problem nowadays. It would certainly be permissible to let it burn. Perhaps they would put it out and try to charge people for the service after the fact if they haven’t bought fire insurance? Perhaps it would be a requirement if you wanted homeowners insurance?

    And who would make the laws, and who would interpret the laws and who would judge the transgressor?

    Judges/arbitrators. Most disagreements are decided by binding arbitration now anyway. The country would be a better place if government judges would simply rubber stamp binding arbitration decisions now. The courts actually get a lot of jurisprudence from private arbitrators already. Under AnCap, the judges/arbitrators with the best reputation for fairness would be the ones getting the cases and thus the only ones that could stay in business.

    It sound like your talking about small town government and giving it a new name.

    Well, most of the functions of even local government wouldn’t be performed. Roads probably wouldn’t be a smooth and paved where practically no one drives because the people don’t want to pay for that unless it’s done through taxation. Traffic would probably be a lot less too because there would be higher costs to use the roads during high use time.

    This is nonsense on stilts. The judges who gave the right results to the people who paid the most would get the work. Just at the private “police” forces who protected their clients at the expense of others would get the most work. The rich would have even more power over the poor, because their private forces would rule them.

    That’s hard to believe given that the rich control government now. It’s much easier to pay a couple politicians in DC than it is to try to pay off a multitude of unconnected businesses with profit motives. One person might have a ton of money, but as we see now, the ultrawealthy control very little of the overall wealth. The big money is in the middle class (which is why the left needs to find a way to raise their taxes in order to pay for their boondoggles) and so you’re going to get a lot of protection companies that would cater to the middle class.

    • #155
  6. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    I see socialism as the mortal enemy of libertarianism. So when I see libertarians flirting with Democrats, I figure they’re not very good libertarians.

    I figure a lot of people don’t understand their own politics. Don’t forget the signs at Occupy Wall Street. “Anarchists for a $20/hr minimum wage.”

    I remember walking through the UW Madison student union some years ago and seeing signs advertising the organizational meeting for an anarchists group.  Seemed wrong somehow.  I never really though of anarchists as being big joiners.

     

    I wonder if they run their meetings using Roberts Rules of Order?

     

    • #156
  7. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    One la-a-ast question.  What about sewage, easements for electrical lines, water run-off (including onto someone else’s property), water management and people dumping or leaking their sewage into the stream you use for drinking water?  This is all going to be done by individual personal contract?  Or by — what — the terms of being allowed to live in this gated HOA-run county?  Or else what?  If I sell my farm to someone who doesn’t want to take part, what are you going to do to him?  You need some kind of government.

    It seems to me, there is no way any of this can be done except for very large tracts of land, far bigger than 20 acres.  In which nobody ever sees anyone else, where you can scoot across someone else’s land without them knowing (and charging you a toll), where your outhouse never abuts your neighbor’s pond, and where all disputes are settled by an ad hoc jury of townsfolk, law enforcement is posse, and judgements are extrajudicial, up to and including vigilanteism and lynchings hangings

    I mean are you going to have a jail?

    • #157
  8. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    I see socialism as the mortal enemy of libertarianism. So when I see libertarians flirting with Democrats, I figure they’re not very good libertarians.

    I figure a lot of people don’t understand their own politics. Don’t forget the signs at Occupy Wall Street. “Anarchists for a $20/hr minimum wage.”

    I remember walking through the UW Madison student union some years ago and seeing signs advertising the organizational meeting for an anarchists group. Seemed wrong somehow. I never really though of anarchists as being big joiners.

     

    I wonder if they run their meetings using Roberts Rules of Order?

     

    We may be tiptoeing around why it’s so hard to pin down what libertarians believe.  Real libertarians are unlikely to show and tell you.  Much like atheists.  What do they believe?  Well, just read the Atheist Bible and find out for yourself.

    • #158
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):
    Before you knock on your neighbor’s door to ask to turn down the music you’d call the police? Before you tell your neighbor to leash his pit you’d call animal control?

    That’s how it goes these days. People don’t want to talk to their neighbors. They’ll call the police for the most ridiculous reasons.

    The problem is, neighbors have gotten ridiculous these days.

    • #159
  10. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):
    Before you knock on your neighbor’s door to ask to turn down the music you’d call the police? Before you tell your neighbor to leash his pit you’d call animal control?

    That’s how it goes these days. People don’t want to talk to their neighbors. They’ll call the police for the most ridiculous reasons.

    The problem is, neighbors have gotten ridiculous these days.

    Since you guys are still talking about it, let me tell you a story.  My first apartment was second floor of three.  Below was a quiet flower shop, and above was a librarian living with a seminary student (he was the librarian, she the seminary student).  All was tranquil.  After a year or two the flower shop moved out and a series of disco music lovers moved in.  Upstairs the couple moved out and a part-time amateur hooker moved in.  Every morning at 3am, which was the middle of the night to me, the conversations and subsequent banging started.  But worst, she kept her radio on.  I asked her to turn it down and she didn’t.  The next night I called her up to ask the same thing, and she tersely said No, and we were disconnected, probably hung up.  I called back and she called the police on me for harassment.  The cops came and threatened me.  I tried to explain what happened, but they police were actually threateningly abusive.  Said if she called back I would be arrested.

    I spoke to the landlord about it and all he ever said was keep calling 911.  Eventually I had to move out.  I should have called the cops first, just like the landlord said.

    I still do try to talk to the neighbors first, because that’s what I would want, but really do see kedavis’ point.

    Lose a friend by calling the cops first; make an enemy of both the neighbor and the police by talking to the neighbor first.

    • #160
  11. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Thanks for your frank honesty. I kind of get a better picture of things now. And I link this thinking with libertarianism (correct me if I’m wrong there too).

    Yes, I think this is the logical consequence of correct libertarian thought, but most libertarians, who I wholy accept into the fold, strongly disagree with this and are probably horrified by AnCap. I have no real problem with things like minarchism. If that were possible, it would get pretty close to maximizing the enforcement of correct morality.

    A few thoughts. What happens when the settlers die and their kids remain? And what happens to this non-government government? (Including, who gets the house?)

    Answered at the end. 

    If there are no community roads, and all roads are owned by the individual land owner, you’re land locked and can’t leave your property without paying a toll. You can’t get to work without paying a toll. Tolls are private so the guy you flipped off yesterday blocks your use of his road today. Assuming for this conversation most parcels in the town-like area are 5-10 acres, you have to pay a toll every 10th of a mile. In the town, the road is owned by all business corporately? And when you buy a business you must rebuy the road for yourself? (The seller wants to keep his road rights.) You must pay to use the corporate road to go shopping? Otherwise, it the road free access? If it’s free access why would any shop owner pay for partial ownership. What happens when a flood ruts the road and it’s unusable? Volunteer work? What about the loafers and freeloaders? Enough about roads.

    That’s a really good question and one I’ve been pondering. I think the answer is that you’re not allowed to deny people egress in most cases. I don’t think you’re allowed to deny people reasonable peaceful movement across your property. I also think in a lot of cases, there will be incentive to give people free access on your road. Like in your corporate example. The reason to build the road is so people can get to your store and spend money!

    Finally would there be a jail? How do you deal with thieves, vandals, robbers, assailants and murderers. How does a magistrate or judge or paid mediator enforce a contract when the loser refuses to honor the judges decree?

    Well, if the general population has accepted the legitimacy of the court’s decision, it shouldn’t be difficult to enforce the decisions. I wouldn’t be surprised if jail was replaced or rarely used, replaced by torts and perhaps things like corporal punishment.

    I just don’t see a town or county — especially one which will eventually be lived in and owned by people who never agreed to anything, and, say, ran away from home at 14 and returned to inherit the house and land — working without some form of “-archy”.

    Well, it might depend how long you’ve been away. I can imagine that if you abandoned property for long enough without any communication that there would be standards that would open the ownership claim to other people. But transfer of ownership would be fairly similar under normal circumstances.

    • #161
  12. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Mike H (View Comment):

    I just don’t see a town or county — especially one which will eventually be lived in and owned by people who never agreed to anything, and, say, ran away from home at 14 and returned to inherit the house and land — working without some form of “-archy”.

    Well, it might depend how long you’ve been away. I can imagine that if you abandoned property for long enough without any communication that there would be standards that would open the ownership claim to other people. But transfer of ownership would be fairly similar under normal circumstances.

    What I mean is children who inherit from a recently deceased parent, and have no intention of living by your rules, or selling to people who have no intention of living by your rules.  So they live by their own standards or some other legal principles (perhaps those of the nation this town is in — as they recently did in Mexico) and slowly your AnCap dissipates and is overwhelmed.

    And would you have a set penalty for each kind of crime?  And would you exile if he refuses the punishment?  And if he’s ever exiled, say, for murder, would he forfeit his land and house and all?

    What I’m getting at is once you do this, you’re no longer anarchic at all.  I would look at it and say you’re a town, with a government in everything but name.

    • #162
  13. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    I just don’t see a town or county — especially one which will eventually be lived in and owned by people who never agreed to anything, and, say, ran away from home at 14 and returned to inherit the house and land — working without some form of “-archy”.

    Well, it might depend how long you’ve been away. I can imagine that if you abandoned property for long enough without any communication that there would be standards that would open the ownership claim to other people. But transfer of ownership would be fairly similar under normal circumstances.

    What I mean is children who inherit from a recently deceased parent, and have no intention of living by your rules, or selling to people who have no intention of living by your rules. So they live by their own standards or some other legal principles (perhaps those of the nation this town is in — as they recently did in Mexico) and slowly your AnCap dissipates and is overwhelmed.

    And would you have a set penalty for each kind of crime? And would you exile if he refuses the punishment? And if he’s ever exiled, say, for murder, would he forfeit his land and house and all?

    What I’m getting at is once you do this, you’re no longer anarchic at all. I would look at it and say you’re a town, with a government in everything but name.

    Yeah, I lot of people get hung up on the word “anarchy” but the system that is being described as AnCap would be highly ordered, and difficult to predict because the free market is difficult to predict. If the best way to do things was obvious we would simply do it that way from the beginning.

    • #163
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Not to get into the weeds, but there wouldn’t be just one entity. It would be a bunch of competing (perhaps HOA-analogous) entities that provide protection services, probably among other services, at which point normal people say, “well, obviously those entities would just be at war with each other constantly, so it fails right there.”

    I don’t believe it’s nearly so obvious, but that’s why I’m strange.

    At bottom, what I’m asking here is who controls the money? And who tells him what to spend it on? And while I’m at it, I keep wondering how anyone knows who owns what land and by what authority is this land owned?

    Original land ownership is always a tricky problem, but it would mainly be done by improving and settling it for an extended period of time or purchasing it from someone else. A lot of the how it would work is going to be speculation by its nature because we can’t be sure what it would look like until the spontaneous order forms.

    Will police services be like what we saw with private fire departments that fight a fire a at one house and let the other burn? How would laws be made to prevent this, or would they not?

    I’m not sure. Fire isn’t nearly as much of a problem nowadays. It would certainly be permissible to let it burn. Perhaps they would put it out and try to charge people for the service after the fact if they haven’t bought fire insurance? Perhaps it would be a requirement if you wanted homeowners insurance?

    And who would make the laws, and who would interpret the laws and who would judge the transgressor?

    Judges/arbitrators. Most disagreements are decided by binding arbitration now anyway. The country would be a better place if government judges would simply rubber stamp binding arbitration decisions now. The courts actually get a lot of jurisprudence from private arbitrators already. Under AnCap, the judges/arbitrators with the best reputation for fairness would be the ones getting the cases and thus the only ones that could stay in business.

    It sound like your talking about small town government and giving it a new name.

    Well, most of the functions of even local government wouldn’t be performed. Roads probably wouldn’t be a smooth and paved where practically no one drives because the people don’t want to pay for that unless it’s done through taxation. Traffic would probably be a lot less too because there would be higher costs to use the roads during high use time.

    This is nonsense on stilts. The judges who gave the right results to the people who paid the most would get the work. Just at the private “police” forces who protected their clients at the expense of others would get the most work. The rich would have even more power over the poor, because their private forces would rule them.

    That’s hard to believe given that the rich control government now. It’s much easier to pay a couple politicians in DC than it is to try to pay off a multitude of unconnected businesses with profit motives. One person might have a ton of money, but as we see now, the ultrawealthy control very little of the overall wealth. The big money is in the middle class (which is why the left needs to find a way to raise their taxes in order to pay for their boondoggles) and so you’re going to get a lot of protection companies that would cater to the middle class.

    The rich cannot have you killed outright. Warlords can. And what happens when those protection companies come into conflict with the tanks of the ultra rich? Sorry, we have seen how this plays out already in history. 

    • #164
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Libertarians seem to forget that every solution has problems, and keep looking for solutions that don’t.

    • #165
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Read The End is Near by Kevin Williamson and look at that stuff about the financial system but I post that no one reads. If you fix all of that, that is libertarian enough. You would get a fair distribution of better prosperity and fewer social problems. People wouldn’t be putting weirdos in political office anymore.

     

     

    • #166
  17. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    People wouldn’t be putting weirdos in political office anymore.

    Rufus, you crazy dreamer, you.

    • #167
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.